Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Heinah" "Heinah" (by Bito me'Ishto and Bito me'Anusaso) - that in the same way as by Bito me'Ishto, his daughter is forbidden just like his granddaughter (both of which *are* explicitly written in the Pasuk), so too, is Bito me'Anusaso (which is *not* explicitly written) is forbidden just like his granddaughter (which *is*).
2. ... "Zimah" "Zimah" (from Chamoso) - that Bito me'Ishto carries a Chiyuv Sereifah.

(b) If, as we just suggested, the Tana prefers what is learned from a D'rashah - then he ought to have placed Achos Ishto last (since it is the only case which is not learned from a Derashah.

(c) Neither will it help to say that the Tana did not do so in order to include Achos Ishto together with the other cases of 'Achvasa', which appear earlier - because then he should rather have rearranged the other cases of Achvasa, to place them last together with Achos Ishto.

(a) We finally explain the order of our Mishnah - in order of closeness: 1. his daughter and granddaughters - who are his own flesh and blood; 2. his wife's daughter and granddaughters - because after mentioning *his* relatives, it follows that the Tana mentions his *wife's* (corresponding ones); 3. his mother-in-law, her mother and his father-in-law's mother - because having mentioned three generations down from his wife, it follows logically to mention the three corresponding generations upwards; 4. his sister and mother's sister - who are his own blood relatives, before his daughter-in-law, who is not; 5. his wife's sister - because she is also a case of Achvasa, about whom e are currently speaking.

(b) The Tana ought to have placed Kalaso before Eishes Achiv she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo and Eishes Achiv me'Imo - because, seeing as none of them are blood-relatives, the Tana should have given preference to Kalaso, which is the most stringent of them.

(c) He nevertheless inverts the order, placing Kalaso last - because the other two are cases of Achvah (and therefore are more closely connected with the previous cases of Achvasa).

(d) The Tana omits the case of Imo - because she is forbidden to all his brothers because of Eishes Aviv (which is why she appears in the Mishnah on 13a.).

(a) The Tana uses the Lashon 'Potros' and not 'Osros' - because 'Osros' would imply that although she exempts the Tzarah from Yibum, she nevertheless remains Chayav to perform Chalitzah (which she is not).

(b) In fact, the Tana could have said Asurah la'Ch'lotz - which is forbidden, in case one comes to make Yibum.

(c) He nevertheless says 'Potros' and not 'Osros' - to make it clear that it is only in the case of Yibum (when it was the *brother* who married them) that the Tzaros of the fifteen women are forbidden, but not when someone else married them.

(d) Someone who made Yibum with one of the Tzaros in our Mishnah would transgress Eishes Achiv (as if he had children).

(a) We just explained that the Tana found it necessary to mention that they are also exempt from Chalitzah, because we are afraid that if they are required to perform Chalitzah, then maybe they will go on to perform Yibum.

(b) Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes applies to cases of Safek (see also Mahadura Basra).

(c) Our Mishnah places Chalitzah before Yibum - because it is learned by Aba Shaul, who holds that the Mitzvah of Chalitzah precedes that of Yibum. This is because he is afraid that the Yavam will make Yibum for an ulterior motive, in which case it will be akin to transgressing Eishes Achiv she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah, and the child will be close to being a Mamzer (as we shall see in Perek ha'Choletz es Yevimto).

(d) According to the Rabbanan - the Mitzvah of Yibum takes precedence over that of Chalitzah.

5)

(a) The Tana begins with 'Fifteen women' (even though we can count them ourselves), and ends with 'Harei Eilu Potros ... ' to preclude 1. Rav - who says that if a man had two wives, one of whom committed adultery (to become a Sotah - who is forbidden to her husband) and her husband died without children, then both she and her Tzarah are forbidden to the Yavam; 2. Rav Asi - who says the same thing with regard to a man who had two wives, one of whom was an Aylonis (that should he die without children, both women are Patur from Yibum).

(b) According to Rav and Rav Asi, the Mishnah comes to preclude one or both of (depending whether they hold like each other or not) Tzaras Mema'enes and Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso. The case of ...

1. ... a Tzaras Mema'enes - is when the Yesomah who was married to his deceased brother made Miy'un on the Yavam. Chazal forbade Yibum with the Tzarah because of Tzaras Bito Mema'enes, who is forbidden because, at the time when she fell to Yibum (before her Tzarah made Miy'un with her father), she appeared to be Tzaras Bito. 2. ... a Tzaras Machzir Gerushaso - is when his brother divorced his wife, and re-married her (be'Isur) after someone else had married her and died.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah does not include them - because, seeing as the Isur is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the Tzarah is Chayav to perform Chalitzah (whereas all the cases in our Mishnah are Patur from Chalitzah, too, as we explained on Amud Aleph).

(d) According to Rav and Rav Asi (who hold that Tzaras Mema'enes and Machzir Gerushaso are Patur from Chalitzah, too), the Tana does not insert Tzaras Sotah and Tzaras Aylonis in our Mishnah - because Tzaras Tzarah, which applies to all the cases in our Mishnah, will not apply to them (seeing as both Sotah and Aylonis are forbidden to all the brothers, none of whom are therefore permitted to marry them.

(a) We learn from ...

1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yevamah Yavo *Alehah*" "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach li'Tz'ror *Alehah* be'Chayehah" - that just as the former speaks in place of a Mitzvah, so too, does the latter; and still the Pasuk writes "Lo Sikach", to teach us that one cannot perform Yibum with Achos Ishah (even though it is a Mitzvah).
2. ... "li'Tz'ror" (from the extra Reish) - that Tzaras Tzarah is forbidden, just like Tzaras Ervah herself (and so too, any number of Tzaros of Tzaros).

(b) We learn that the other fourteen cases in our Mishnah are Asur to the Yavam by means of a Binyan Av from Achos Ishah. They are all similar to Achos Ishah - inasmuch as they, like she, are Arayos, are Chayav Kareis be'Meizid and Chatas be'Shogeg.

(a) If one of the six Arayos listed in the next Mishnah (on Daf 13a: mother, father's wife, father's sister, maternal sister, father's brother's wife and paternal brother's wife) married someone else (not one's brother), and her husband died - one would be permitted to marry their Tzarah if their husband died, because, unlike all the cases in the first Mishnah, they are forbidden to *all* the brothers, and it is only when she falls to all the brothers and is forbidden to him alone, that the Tzarah is forbidden.

(b) She is not forbidden because of Tzaras Ervah - because it is the Isur Ach which makes her a Tzaras Ervah). When however, she is forbidden to *all* the brothers because of another Ervah, then the Tzarah is permitted.

(c) We now know the Isur of making Yibum with an Ervah or a Tzaras Ervah from "li'Tz'ror" - and we learn the punishment from the Pasuk there "Ki Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh ... ve'Nichresu ... ".

Next daf